DavidBenAkiva
Member
See my last comment. It was an error on my part.I just re-downloaded it, and pre-tournament Michigan was #29 offense and #5 defense and Michigan State was #9 in both.
See my last comment. It was an error on my part.I just re-downloaded it, and pre-tournament Michigan was #29 offense and #5 defense and Michigan State was #9 in both.
Sorry, I posted before you made the edit.See my last comment. It was an error on my part.
While it's difficult to predict the future I'd wager a pie bet against both Duke and Iowa State winning the national championship.I had some time and inclination to look up the pre-tourney stats from KenPom. As Kedsey noted, they only go back to 2001. Here are all the teams that were in the top 5 of both AdjOE and AdjDE, 2001-2024:
Year Team AdjOE AdjDE NCAAT 2001 Duke 2 2 National Champions 2002 Duke 1 2 Sweet 16 2004 Duke 3 3 Final Four 2005 Illinois 2 5 National Runner-Up 2007 North Carolina 3 2 Elite 8 2008 Kansas 1 3 National Champions 2010 Kansas 2 4 Round of 32 2010 Duke 4 5 National Champions 2019 Virginia 2 5 National Champions
From this group...
100% Reached the Round of 64
100% Reached the Round of 32
88.9% Reached the Sweet 16
77.8% Reached the Elite 8
66.7% Reached the Final 4
55.6% Reached the National Title Game
44.4% Won the National Championship
Those are pretty good outcomes if you ask me.
There is a larger group of teams that were Top 10 in AdjOE and AdjDE. Here's that group, 2001-2024 (excluding Kansas in 2020 due to the lack of an NCAA Tournament that year):
Year Team AdjOE AdjDE NCAAT 2001 Duke 2 2 National Champions 2001 MSU 3 8 Final Four 2001 Arizona 10 3 National Runner-Up 2002 Duke 1 2 Sweet 16 2002 Cincinnati 7 1 Round of 32 2002 Kansas 5 7 Final Four 2003 Kentucky 8 4 Elite 8 2004 Duke 3 3 Final Four 2005 Illinois 2 5 National Runner-Up 2005 North Carolina 3 6 National Champions 2005 Duke 10 3 Sweet 16 2006 UConn 8 9 Elite 8 2007 North Carolina 3 2 Elite 8 2007 Ohio State 6 10 National Runner-Up 2008 Kansas 1 3 National Champions 2008 UCLA 6 4 Final Four 2008 Duke 8 7 Round of 32 2010 Kansas 2 4 Round of 32 2010 Duke 4 5 National Champions 2011 Duke 6 5 Sweet 16 2012 Kentucky 2 6 National Champions 2012 Ohio State 7 3 Final Four 2013 Florida 6 4 Elite 8 2014 Louisville 7 6 Sweet 16 2015 Kentucky 6 1 Final Four 2016 Kansas 7 4 Elite 8 2016 Virginia 8 6 Elite 8 2017 Gonzaga 10 2 National Runner-Up 2018 Duke 3 7 Elite 8 2018 Michigan 9 9 National Runner-Up 2019 Virginia 2 5 National Champions 2019 Duke 6 6 Elite 8 2019 Michigan State 4 8 Final Four 2019 North Carolina 7 10 Sweet 16 2021 Gonzaga 1 10 National Runner-Up 2021 Illinois 7 5 Round of 32 2021 Michigan 6 7 Elite 8 2022 Gonzaga 1 7 Sweet 16 2024 Auburn 10 4 Round of 64
From this group...
100% Reached the Round of 64
97.4% Reached the Round of 32
87.2% Reached the Sweet 16
71.8% Reached the Elite 8
48.7% Reached the Final 4
30.8% Reached the National Title Game
15.4% Won the National Championship
At the moment, Duke and Iowa State are the only two teams in top 10 of both AdjOE and AdjDE.
Well, no brainer! It'd be really tough for both Duke and Iowa State to win the national championship.While it's difficult to predict the future I'd wager a pie bet against both Duke and Iowa State winning the national championship.
You are a silver tongued Devil with shrewd powers of observation.Well, no brainer! It'd be really tough for both Duke and Iowa State to win the national championship.
-jk
Final tied when earthquake causes the game to be ended?Well, no brainer! It'd be really tough for both Duke and Iowa State to win the national championship.
-jk
Nope. Houston still withe #1 D. Kansas gave that game away.After Duke's low scoring win over Wake, our KenPom offensive efficiency dropped to #6, but with Houston's high scoring game with Kansas, we will probably take over #1 on defensive efficiency.
Nope. Houston still withe #1 D. Kansas gave that game away.
It would be fun to pop ahead of Auburn in the NET tomorrow. No way to know if we are close.KENPOM #1 Overall
I guess it's "fun" to be #1 in NET, but meaningless even for NCAA tournament seeding purposes. Just helps Kentucky and Kansas who then have a win over the #1 team, but ironically, doesn't help us being #1 vs. #5 or whatever because we're just judged on the quality/quantity of our wins/losses. It's used as the blunt measurement to assess the quality of your opponents and then you're judged based on how you do against that. Of course, there's high correlation between raw NET rank and results...It would be fun to pop ahead of Auburn in the NET tomorrow. No way to know if we are close.
One consequence of getting the overall #1 seed would be getting to choose our region (I assume that's still a thing?) Of course, I don't even know if we would choose the East (Prudential Center in NJ) or the South (State Farm Arena in Atlanta) but it would be nice to have the choice.I guess it's "fun" to be #1 in NET, but meaningless even for NCAA tournament seeding purposes.
The official stance of the NCAA is that '"the NET is one of many tools used by the committee in seeding the tournament". So it's not the final answer - quadrant wins and all matter - but it's a factor. Would be interesting to see how many of the NET #1s were the overall tournament #1 seed the past few years. I would guess there's a strong correlation.I guess it's "fun" to be #1 in NET, but meaningless even for NCAA tournament seeding purposes. Just helps Kentucky and Kansas who then have a win over the #1 team, but ironically, doesn't help us being #1 vs. #5 or whatever because we're just judged on the quality/quantity of our wins/losses. It's used as the blunt measurement to assess the quality of your opponents and then you're judged based on how you do against that. Of course, there's high correlation between raw NET rank and results...
"Who did you beat and where did you beat them?" seems to be the committee's seeding mantra, though NET rankings near the top are going to mostly capture that.The official stance of the NCAA is that '"the NET is one of many tools used by the committee in seeding the tournament". So it's not the final answer - quadrant wins and all matter - but it's a factor. Would be interesting to see how many of the NET #1s were the overall tournament #1 seed the past few years. I would guess there's a strong correlation.
Does it matter this year so much for Duke? Probably not. As long as we are a top 3 seed, we very likely get #1 in the East. It might impact, for example, whether we get the #4 or #5 SEC team as our #2 seed. But that's overthinking it. We just need to keep winning and get that East #1 seed.
Especially that last one!We don't need to worry about NET. Just win the rest of our games this season and we are set!
Year | Avg | Median | <90 | <=75 | Low | <=75 in games 20+ | NCAAT |
2025 | 95.89 | 97 | 1 | 0 | 87 | ?? | ?? |
2008 | 95.84 | 98 | 3 | 0 | 81 | 2 | 16 |
2009 | 95.32 | 98 | 2 | 1 | 73 | 3 | 16 |
2019 | 95.21 | 98 | 3 | 0 | 79 | 2* | 8 |
2011 | 94.84 | 96 | 2 | 0 | 80 | 2 | 16 |
2010 | 93.58 | 97 | 3 | 1 | 48 | 1 | 1 |
2015 | 91.58 | 97 | 5 | 2 | 48 | 2 | 1 |
2014 | 91.42 | 96 | 5 | 2 | 70 | 2 | 64 |
2013 | 91.26 | 96 | 3 | 1 | 29 | 3 | 8 |
2012 | 90.47 | 92 | 7 | 1 | 59 | 4 | 64 |
2016 | 90.00 | 93 | 7 | 1 | 75 | 2 | 16 |
2018 | 89.95 | 95 | 7 | 4 | 63 | 1 | 8 |
2020 | 89.89 | 97 | 7 | 3 | 64 | 3 | n/a |
2017 | 89.63 | 93 | 5 | 2 | 40 | 1 | 32 |
2022 | 89.58 | 90 | 7 | 2 | 68 | 2 | 4 |
2024 | 83.11 | 92 | 8 | 5 | 40 | 3 | 8 |
2023 | 78.47 | 88 | 11 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 32 |
2021 | 75.79 | 76 | 11 | 9 | 50 | 2 | n/a |
Really cool analysis. Thing that struck me most was the lowest four averages were in the last four years!Over the first 12 possessions of the second half against Wake (about 8 minutes, or 20% of the game), Duke was outscored 17-1. And yet, the team played well enough during the rest of the game to manage a 95 Torvik game score. Which got me thinking.
Most of you know that Torvik calculates a "game score" for each game a team plays, with a maximum of 100 being the best a team can play. Every year, no matter how good the Duke team is, the team inevitably has a couple of "clunkers" (which for these purposes I've defined as a game score of 75 or worse). This eight minute segment against Wake represents as close to a clunker as the 2025 Blue Devils have come, but we've only played 19 games. So I compared our game score performance against the first 19 games of past Duke teams (back to 2008, which is the earliest Torvik has on his website):
Year Avg Median <90 <=75 Low <=75 in games 20+ NCAAT 2025 95.89 97 1 0 87?? ?? 2008 95.84 98 3 0 812 16 2009 95.32 98 2 1 733 16 2019 95.21 98 3 0 792* 8 2011 94.84 96 2 0 802 16 2010 93.58 97 3 1 481 1 2015 91.58 97 5 2 482 1 2014 91.42 96 5 2 702 64 2013 91.26 96 3 1 293 8 2012 90.47 92 7 1 594 64 2016 90.00 93 7 1 752 16 2018 89.95 95 7 4 631 8 2020 89.89 97 7 3 643 n/a 2017 89.63 93 5 2 401 32 2022 89.58 90 7 2 682 4 2024 83.11 92 8 5 403 8 2023 78.47 88 11 4 95 32 2021 75.79 76 11 9 502 n/a
* (both of the 2019 team's clunkers came while Zion was injured)
As you can see, this year's model has the best average game score, the fewest games under 90, the highest low score, and is one of only four Duke teams in the period to have no clunkers. For the first 19 games anyway. That shows not only how high a level we've played so far, but how consistent we've been (notwithstanding the first 8 minutes of the second half against Wake).
That said, Duke has had at least two clunkers from the 20th game and beyond in 14 of the previous 17 seasons (all but 2010, 2017, and 2018). Can we avoid that this year? Only time can tell.